09 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckeragain a pile of unsubstantiated crap. (for instance trying to pass off the evolutionists comments about the tsunami caused by the meteor strike at the K-T boundary as a flood even happening 4,000 years ago.)
[b]What Flood? There is no evidence for any cataclysmic flood. Oh dear.
Dude... Are you a scientist? Have you ever heard of the fossil record?
Does the Grand Canyon ring a bell?
Speaking about educating ourselves...
Check:
http://www.layevangelism.com/advtxbk/sections/sect-10/sec10-5.htm[/b]
Fossil record has no evidence of a cataclysmic flood. But then, you don't trust the fossil record anyway.
What HAS the Grand Canyon got to do with anything?
Oh, were DID all the water go after that flood?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
09 Mar 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzagain a pile of unsubstantiated crap.
again a pile of unsubstantiated crap.
Fossil record has no evidence of a cataclysmic flood. But then, you don't trust the fossil record anyway.
What HAS the Grand Canyon got to do with anything?
Oh, were DID all the water go after that flood?
After another 4 minutes of thorough evaluation...
Fossil record has no evidence of a cataclysmic flood. But then, you don't trust the fossil record anyway.
You obviously did not read the site I gave you.
Oh, were DID all the water go after that flood?
Oh dear. The poor Doc has never seen the Ocean.
09 Mar 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerBut the ocean would have to increase in depth by thousands of metres to cover even almost all of the surface of the earth. Where did those billions of tons of water go afterwards? Hell, where did they come from in the first place?
Oh dear. The poor Doc has never seen the Ocean.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
09 Mar 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZEver heard of a vapour canopy and underground water?
But the ocean would have to increase in depth by thousands of metres to cover even almost all of the surface of the earth. Where did those billions of tons of water go afterwards? Hell, where did they come from in the first place?
09 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerdj, just listen to yourself. Are you suggesting that there is enough capacity in the atmosphere and underground to hold enough water to completely cover the world to a depth of several meters? I'd suggest you invoke some sort of divine intervention because there is NO WAY that much water could be held in the atmosphere/underground. Your hypothesis doesn't "hold water" as it were.....
Ever heard of a vapour canopy and underground water?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
09 Mar 06
Originally posted by corp1131http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html
dj, just listen to yourself. Are you suggesting that there is enough capacity in the atmosphere and underground to hold enough water to completely cover the world to a depth of several meters? I'd suggest you invoke some sort of divine intervention because there is NO WAY that much water could be held in the atmosphere/underground. Your hypothesis doesn't "hold water" as it were.....
09 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerQuote from that webpage:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html
"After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the earth (verse 9)[1]. They are the same waters!...Clearly, what the Bible is telling us is that God acted to alter the earth's topography...Quite clearly, then, the waters of Noah's Flood are in today's ocean basins."
Good Lord, dj2, get a frickin' clue.
09 Mar 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzThanks for the info.
The earliest life would have been prokaryotes, similar to todays blue-green algae. Single cellular photosynthetic organisms. What we'd understand as plants (i.e. terrestrial vascular plants, trees and the like) didn't evolve until around 400 million years ago - so relatively recently. Eukaryotic cells, like ours and 'plant' cells have a number of org ...[text shortened]... d never have evolved because the atmosphere would probably never get above 10% O2.
I can now, at least, start to see why you are so adamant in your position.
DF
09 Mar 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI don't know much about dating techniques (I've been married too long) but I do have a question.
You really aren't very clever are you? (Nor, in fact, did you actually bother to READ the article, or you'd have seen the bit 'can we trust the data'😉 You take something of any given age, but older is better, then you date it using several different dating techniques (there are over 40 radiodating techniques). If the decay constants change over time t ...[text shortened]... ut, not the orders of magnitude that you require for your fairy stories to be bourne out.
I heard that these isotopes decay at a steady rate (exponential, or whatever). How do we know it's a steady rate and that the rate doesn't change after a given time?
DF
09 Mar 06
Originally posted by DragonFriendHi DF,
I don't know much about dating techniques (I've been married too long) but I do have a question.
I heard that these isotopes decay at a steady rate (exponential, or whatever). How do we know it's a steady rate and that the rate doesn't change after a given time?
DF
If they did vary, all techniques would vary independantly, because the decays constants would change independantly (based, probably on mass or something). However, since we can use multiple techniques to date the same sample to the same date it means that the decay constants must never change. Basically, it's like measuring the length of something - one ruler may be wrong, but if you measure it with 10 different rulers and get the same result, then either the first ruler was correct, OR all the rulers are wrong by exactly the same amount. This would be made further unlikely if all the rulers were made by different companies in different factories. Essentially, by using multiple techniques we are verifying the age yielded, unless every technique that we have for radiodating (there are over 40) is wrong by exactly the same amount, and have been wrong by the same amount for all of history. The chances of that eventuality being correct are several hundred billion to one.